Philosophy is concerned with the most important questions and the most important questions are debatable. Science restricts itself to questions that can be settled through experiment and empirical evidence, while ideally regarding scientific results as tentative and open to revision upon new evidence
Some theists imagine that quantum mechanics can lend support to spiritual realities. They point to the Copenhagen interpretation, which incidentally has no fixed meaning. But one meaning is an agreement to shut up and calculate. The equations of quantum mechanics work therefore there is no necessity to figure out what the implications for physical reality are concerning these equations.
Physicists mostly avoid asking about the foundations of quantum mechanics. But of those who do ask such questions, there is no agreed upon answer. At that point, quantum mechanics becomes speculative and thus debatable. Some philosophers have felt that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are friendly to spiritual realities and like to promote them as the truth. However, only scientific evidence should be used to select scientific theories. Employing religious criteria or religious motives for supporting a scientific theory is to be confused. It becomes a matter of saying “I prefer that this interpretation be true because it seems to fit my religious ideas.” In that case, science has ended and wishful thinking has taken over. And none but the most brilliant physicists are even qualified to participate in the debate; certainly not the interested layman.
A graduate school professor pointed out that the obscure must be explained, if it is to be explained at all, by the less obscure. Religious debates are debates on obscure topics. To appeal to science when that science is just as debatable and obscure as the religious idea a person wishes to support is to have made no progress at all. In fact, it is to engage in an error. It is to support a religious idea for which there is no widespread support with a scientific idea for which there is no agreement either.
The multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is worrying theologically. If there are an infinite or at least indefinite number of a person all coexisting at the same time, what would that mean for the existence of the soul, and what would be the eschatological implications? Some versions of him would possibly be saintly while other ones might be diabolical. Ockham’s Razor often seems to be employed by the anti-spiritual, but the contention of the continuous division and branching of reality with whole new universes springing into existence all the time is surely not the simplest explanation.
However, we should remain content for science to develop as the evidence takes it. Physicists are not required to phone religious philosophers before postulating new theories. It is we who must accommodate to them, not the other way around, just as philosophers do not consult with them before philosophizing.